"Which WW2 rules model Find-Fix-Flank-Finish?" Topic

Reading small unit tactical instruction I was struck by the US infantry's simple mantra taught to its troops for offensive action:

Find 'em.
Fix 'em (via suppressing fire)
Flank 'em
Finish 'em

Anyone know if any wargames rules actually model and reward these tactics?

They should ideally punish you if you don't suppress the enemy.
They should presumably punish you if you frontally assault the enemy?

Also, they should model a choice that the commander can make between aimed fire and actual suppressing fire.

Also, how did small unit tactical doctrine differ with other nations such as the UK and Germany both in offense and defense?

Crossfire does.

NUTS! from Two Hour Wargames rewards the use of infantry tactics. In game mechanics what you would see is:

1. Find 'em. – "Potential Enemy Force" markers are used (or in head to head just figures) until sides spot each other.

2. Fix 'em (via suppressing fire) – Once spotted, the unique "Reaction System" has both sides dice off to see who wins, and then they start shooting. The losers either die, duck back into cover (suppressed) or return fire.

3. Flank 'em – If you keep the enemy pinned with fire, just move other figures up to flank them. Stay to cover where possible.

4. Finish 'em – toss grenades, shoot 'em, charge 'em. Your choice.

NUTS is the only rules where I've seen a classic infantry assault on an AFV. The scenario was Battle of the Bulge at Stavelot, a German player had pushed his Panther tank into the town by its lonesome. A US player had an engineering team in the town. Part of the team fired on the Panther's TC, forcing the TC to "button up" the tank and lose spotting bonuses. Then the demo team attacked from the rear with a satchel charge -- BOOM! Dead tank. The players were like, "Ahhh…so THAT'S why you don't let tanks go into towns all alone…"

TooFatLardies rules do.

Battlefront: WW2 (available from fireandfury.com) rewards combined arms tactics that fit the paradigm.

Battlegroup Overlord does this. You have the choice between aimed and suppressive fire, allowing you to pin the enemy before closing.

Chain of command do a cracking job of this

Refs and players do a good job of making flanking impossible by covering the table edge to edge with troops.

Action all Fronts
1) Cannot shoot at the enemy until you have spotted them.
2) Enemy can use opportunity fire on your units, when your units move or fire, until the enemy is pinned.
3) Pinned units are less effective and most units only fire to their front.

There is a Yahoo group where you can download an early version of the rules to try
link

Chain of Command are based on period drill and training manuals. This is exactly what the rules are all about

Chain of Command or basically any Too Fat Lardies game.

Which, for WW2, include: Chain of Command (platoon level), I Ain't Been Shot, Mum (company level), and Troops, Weapons, & Tactics (skirmish level).

Battlegroup Kursk series does this.
The original Disposable Heroes did, although i haven't seen the current version.
Chain of command has national characteristics to encourage the player to use the doctrine of the nations in play (marching fire, handgranaten, junior officers giving bonus to squad auto weapons when they direct fire, etc).

WRG (War Game Research Group) incorporated this ability, called "neutralization" from fire, in its company-level WW2 rules published [my copy] in 1975 (the modern version had the same suppression mechanic). The rules were titled Armour & Infantry 1925-1950, and were still available online for download awhile back (and I think for free?). The US Army used a modified version of these rules called Dunn Kempf, as its training set, until computer simulations superseded its use. Dunn Kempf can be purchased as a Kindle book. These game systems were excellent for their enabling of combined-arms tactics. Today (my group broke them out a few years back for a nostalgic revisit to our early gaming experiences) they would seem a bit clunky, but, were really quite elegant in the way they modeled fire and movement at that time, and by tying in suppression results. These weren't skirmish rulesets, but elements were individual vehicles, crew-served weapons, and infantry squads/teams (still in the realm of "small-unit tactics" depending on the scenario being played).

As MajorB says…Crossfire.

Chain of Command is perfect for using those tactics.

First question: was scale are you talking about? One figure is one man?

For everyone who has proposed a ruleset: how do your rules account for flanking? What makes it possible? What benefits does it give? For example, do units have facing? Does fire from the flank cause morale problems? Are infantry easier to hit from the flank, whether because they are caught unaware, because troops that have hit the dirt to find cover from fire to their front are seldom well-protected from the sides, or second other reason? Are trenches or other field fortifications more vulnerable from the flank? Do the rules give a benefit for catching a target in a crossfire? Does being flanked disrupt the whole force, rather than just the few troops immediately taking fire? What other effects model?

Heck, what benefits should flanking actually give at various scales?

As as been said, lots of rules do this. They just do it in different ways.

Now just a quick check on Chain of Command here. My copy of Chain of Command says I can see and shoot at anything a unit has a line of sight to, is that correct (p31).
The limitation on fire to the front is there 7.5 (p30). Pinning is included under Shock. Over-watch is an action that a unit can be assigned to (9.1.3) rather than something any unit can do and it continues to over-watch even if pinned (although at reduced effect).

Flanking. All the one figure = one man rules I have seen. limit firing to the figures front. So in a flank attack, you get to shoot and the other guy does not. The response to that would be, simply turn and shoot, in which case do so.
A flank (or rear) attack may also catch the enemy with weaker cover.
I would say that an attack from the flank/rear should certainly be a morale effect. My rules (Action all Fronts) do not make any special provision for a flank attack in morale, but perhaps that is covered by the increased effectiveness of a flank attack?
For rules like Blizkreig Commander, there is a specific bonus for flank attacks.

If your figures are in a line defending a hedge and they get flanked, only the end guy will be able to shoot; the others will have their line of sight blocked. The enemy will be shooting at you with all their figures.

Certainly if I were in that situation, I would redeploy, both to able to fire and to get better cover.

Another set, which just enjoyed a successful KickStarter campaign is 1-48 Tactic. There's a free, downloadable version of the infantry rules available here below, as a PDF (the KS/commercial set will have full-color art and vehicle rules included):
PDF link
All the bits to dabble with the version above are on the main website here:
1-48tactic.com/rules.htm
I've read through the rules but not played them yet, but I think they touch most, if not all the OPs points above.
I will be using the rules with Baueda's gorgeous 1/48 scale (32mm) figs when everything is delivered from the KickStarter (I'm sure there's quite a few members here on the forum that are going to be doing the same).
What caught my eye with this system, is that all the game bits integrate together (out of the box) – the figs will match their individual cards (and artwork), the card stats illustrated for each soldier shows his weaponry and combat capabilities (the flip side when wounded). Most of the tracking counters for actions or combat "stance" are placed on each trooper's card, not cluttering on top of the battle board, and if one cares to buy the prepared 3D cover/scenic pieces (not required), these interface with the figs and the rules. It's a pretty neat package overall I think (and this just concerns the design effort which went into the coordination of the system's "hard" bits). Btw, I'd rank 1-48 Tactic as "ultra-skirmish" scale – with players controlling a team element or squad/section. Stay tuned for impressions and reports from our delivered KS packages (coming here early next year….I've got my fingers crossed, but feel this will be a Winner).

All the one figure = one man rules I have seen. limit firing to the figures front.

Really ? I haven't seen any rules that do this. Most that I've come across don't have facing rules. It is difficult to have facing rules for individually based figures.

The way it works in Chain of Command is you can't shoot through your own figures. So if you have a squad lined up side by side to shoot forward, and an enemy approaches from the flank, only the end figure of the squad will be able to shoot, unless they move first. So there is an advantage to outflanking an enemy unit.

I would say that an attack from the flank/rear should certainly be a morale effect.

Probably true but almost impossible to make a ruling for in a game where figures are based individually and are not deployed in a strict formation.

It is difficult to have facing rules for individually based figures.

No, it's easy. Just mark the arc of fire on each figure's base with small paint marks.

Really ? I haven't seen any rules that do this. Most that I've come across don't have facing rules.

Well its in Action all Fronts (mine, 24.3) and Chain of Command (7.5).
I looked in Bolt Action but could not find it.

Perhaps we could turn the question on its head.

According to what rules would these tactics *not* work?

There is a *lot* more to flanking, for example, than some sort of shooting bonus. In large part, the "fix 'em" part is designed to keep them looking at the shooters, and losing situational awareness. The "flank 'em" part is about maneuvering close enough to finish them in an assault without being see/shot at. You don't "finish" infantry by shooting at range, you assault them. After all, if you flank them all they have to do is turn and you're back at square one.

You can use these tactics in Flames of War, for example. You shoot and "pin" the enemy. By assaulting from their flank, you get to use all your troops while they only get to use a portion of theirs in most situations.

Now, if your rules have no sort of pinned/ suppressed result?

Look, Sargent, No Charts: WWII has a very elegant spotting system. Together with the other mechanics, you can model what you are asking for.

We were taught (British army) to move the Bren gun onto the flank and then assault the enemy pinned down by the gun. So the infantry were the manoeuvre, the gun the fire support.
I always thought the gun went on the flank so it was not shooting over the line of advance.
Shooting at range seemed to work for Sgt York. So lets add rules for surrender/fleeing would be needed.

Indeed, most rules reward these tactics (if they don't, then throw them away).
However, the problem is a lot of rules also simply reward lining up a lot of firepower and blazing away at range until one side is destroyed/breaks…these should be thrown away as well

But, before you throw the rules away, how 'bout checking if that's just the easiest [most encouraged] way players have learned to play them? This reflects the all too typical tourney/points method, where without the use of a moderator who has selected or designed a scenario (and who usually supplies the units for both sides [secretly organized] prior to the game), instead players bring equal pointed "armies" to the table and go at it. Actually, I'd like to see the whole points method deleted from historical rules [who originated this notion anyway!].

Points systems have to be included, its what players want. But they are never fair. Terrain makes too much difference to how units perform.
At our club we had one player who when he used Blitzkrieg Commander, used M26 tanks with naval gunfire support. They were in the list.
I will also say that when I write a set of rules I try to encourage realistic play from the players. So what worked (apparently from reading the history of battles) should work on the table. I had one chap training to be a British army officer, who sent a squad (or section if you prefer) down a road to spot some German units further down the road. I said to him 'I hope you don't do that in real life'. The enemy would be spotted alright, but most of the squad would have been killed.

Crossfire, I like to do it so much that the group made an amendment. You can only roll (destroy) 2 units/afv in the flak/rear in a turn.

In my rules troops actually have different defense values for front vs flank. You also usually get a "several vs one" advantage when firing from the flank. And suppressing fire is built in. Problem is I've seen good players use real tactics to good effect but I've also seen bad tactics lead to slaughters. I agree that many rules allow for real tactics but few players use them favoring the ever popular Banzai Charge approach. Cheers! Lee

Perhaps more illustrative scenarios to be included in new rules then? Or, instead of another new ruleset, how about a "universal" [stand alone] WW2 encounter generator? Didn't Blitzkrieg Commander have something like this within that ruleset, even a PC version (though hoping not for opting M26s and NG Fire support)? Such a thing would encourage players to contemplate how they intend to use their selected [or generated] forces within a particular battlefield situation.
Who remembers the board game Tank Leader? -
link
I always thought that game's individual unit cards (as a starting point for assembling a side's force from/or as specifying unit options available within each selected scenario type) was a great idea…….so, might be wanting those Tigers, sorry, in this scenario format only Pz IVs and Marders are optioned as the armored reserve (now player, use your best tactics to maximize their effectiveness, today those favorite Tigers are all down for repairs).

Fascinating feedback, chaps – thanks for the thought-provoking comments.

I was thinking of squad/section level encounters with one figure = one man, but I think the principles transfer up into other game scales.

So, it looks like I have some homework to do looking at the following:

• Crossfire
• Nuts!
• Chain of Command
• I Ain't Been Shot Mum
• Troops, Weapons & Tactics
• Battlefront WW2 (Fire & Fury)
• Battlegroup WW2 (Kursk, Overlord etc)
• Action All Fronts
• Armour & Infantry 1925-1950 (WRG)
• 1-48 Tactic
• Look, Sarge, No Charts: WWII

Interestingly, I read the following last night re the US army in WW2:

"Initially, basic infantry assault tactics were the ones that had emerged in the final phases of World War I.

Each twelve-man rifle squad included…
a squad leader,
a two-man scout section,
a four-man fire section (with a BAR providing the main source of the squad's firepower) and…
a five-man maneuver and assault section.

The scouts, accompanied by the squad leader, were to locate the enemy. The squad leader would then call on the fire section to give covering fire while the maneuver and assault section advanced and positioned itself to eliminate the enemy threat."

Roberts, Henry. A Soldier's Tale: Memoirs from the Battlefield

It didn't (at least not so far in my reading) elaborate on how this developed as the conflict progressed (if indeed it did).

Did this change later in the war?

And @FlyXwire, I remember Tank Leader – great game :)

Most games do this to some extent. Most have a "Pin"/suppressed/disrupted result from small arms fire which makes the target much easier to close assualt. I think only Bolt Action fails on this account.

Likewise I have seen many engineer teams take out a tank in close terrian during games. Just had it happen to an unfortunate Panther in a Combat Command game a couple month's ago. Eng generally have better close assualt stuff then regular grunts and close terrian allows them to get close. No magic here.

Bear in mind the enemy may have something to say about all this – what if they are so rude as to try and find/fix/assualt you? Real test of rules is how they handle such opposed situations – who wins out and why.

TomT

I think one of the key thing may be not that the rules allow units to be pinned (that's essential in a WW2 game), but that they also make it impossible (ie. deadly) to frontally assault unpinned troops (it was!) so you must pin the enemy before assaulting.

In addition. commanders should surely be able to call men to rather than aim to kill, provide suppressing fire, which is obviously, "I'm not bothered if you kill stuff, just keep those SOB's heads down while we manoevre…"

I've not seen this firing choice in many rule sets – as mentioned, Battlegroup does – and the boardgame/miniatures game, Tide of Iron, too.

"Crossfire, I like to do it so much that the group made an amendment. You can only roll (destroy) 2 units/afv in the flak/rear in a turn."

There aren't any turns in Crossfire…. :-)

"Points systems have to be included, its what players want. But they are never fair. Terrain makes too much difference to how units perform.
At our club we had one player who when he used Blitzkrieg Commander, used M26 tanks with naval gunfire support. They were in the list."

There's always one, isn't there? Are you lobbying Pendraken to include submarines in BKCIII to neutralise the NG?

I think most player like to think that the rules should give them an even chance (illusory or not..) and scenarios take time to organise and test, so fixed point encounters have become the norm in many cases. It's not an unalloyed good..

Interestingly, many rules, while allowing you to suppress the enemy (although often this seems as a by product of aimed fire, not as a choice to deliberately suppress the target) still allow you to frontally assault the target rather than having to flank it.

This may be just a compromise to the miniature game table, but is unrealistic in that troops suppressing would need to keep firing until the last minute and if assault teams are assaulting frontally the fire teams have to stop firing – hence flank assaults.

In addition, flanking the enemy reduces the number of troops who can effectively resist the assault – again, at this kind of scale, flanks seem a rare beast in miniature games.

I'm not sure I've seen any rules which force you to do all this.

In CoC you can order a unit to lay down suppressive fire which makes it harder for that unit to get hits on your troop as they move.

Crossfire, for sure.

I remember a guy at my club laying down suppressive fire in a game of CoC once and me thinking 'blimey that worked' but most wargamers given the choice of shooting to kill or 'doing something fancy' will nearly always shoot to kill. The only way you can properly model the 4 F's tactic is to present an actual military training exercise on the wargames tables using such a book as the wonderful Valentine's sand table exercises or major C.R. Ward section training exercises. Here in the UK I can think of several wargamers who have looked to present these exercises at their clubs and wargame events. Of course few rules if any are used the exercises being free Kriegspieled.

Manoeuver Group does this. The enemy must be suppressed in most practical situations before a frontal assault is possible. Assaulting from a flank is very advantageous. As assaults are rarely started from more than about 60 yds then you need your base of fire to be able to shoot on the enemy while the assault group as close as 60m so you may well need to be towards the flank. It is fought at 1 to 1 but is normally in sections so arcs of fire are much easier to define. However in the game all fire is effectively suppresive fire with the odd damage being inflicted.

Thanks @UshCha, I'd not heard of them – I found more info here if anyone else is intersted (you can download a QRS for free): link

@blank frank – that was the first time I'd heard of the sand table exercises etc – thanks!

I'd hoped to find them online somewhere as they date at least as far back as early WW2. No luck, but did find one example from Sand Table Exercises here:
link

Section Training Exercises is available in a cheap reprint here:
link

And this site has loads of wartime training pamphlets incl British infantry training from that period:
robvanmeel.nl/?q=catalog/328

Loads of US stuff here (see partic. the Field Manuals)
robvanmeel.nl/?q=catalog/204

There's a load of German stuff too here (but I don't speak it, so can't comment)
robvanmeel.nl/?q=catalog/206